It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

page: 14
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

NavyDoc

jimmyx

thesaneone

buster2010
When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law


Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?


well, here's a reason why, and I chose this person's opinion on it, because it goes right to the heart of the matter. this is written by a maryce ramsey from sooner high school.

Insurance is compensation for labor just like a salary. Does Mr. Green also get to say how his employees spend their salary? Where does this end? If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can he stop you from getting a blood transfusion? If your employer is a Scientologist, can he stop you from seeking counseling or accessing anti-depressants? You may be OK with this because you share Mr. Green's take on Christianity but it doesn't stop with faiths, or even sects of faiths that you agree with. What if your employer doesn't believe in modern medicine at all? If we let one religious sect enforce their religious beliefs on his employees then they all get to. And none of us will have religious freedom anymore. To access health care we will be coerced into following our employer's take on religion. That isn't American.


edit on 4-2-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.


Ah, so a free market is invalid if I cannot find a nation to fit your specifications?

Can we filter all knowledge that way?

Find one nation whose courts ruled that MMR vaccines caused autism. Wait, that nation actually exists. So, if I use your logic, then yes, MMR vaccines cause autism.

Because valid knowledge is only obtainable through the practices of nations. If a nation implements it, it must be valid. Correct?

Sounds fallacious.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

NavyDoc

jimmyx

thesaneone

buster2010
When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law


Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

nixie_nox

Actually, it is. Not having it causes a wide range of psychological and mental issues for a person.


edit on 4-2-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



Do you have anything to back that up?
hmmm I know a lot of nuns and they are all very sane.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.


Ah, so a free market is invalid if I cannot find a nation to fit your specifications?

Can we filter all knowledge that way?

Find one nation whose courts ruled that MMR vaccines caused autism. Wait, that nation actually exists. So, if I use your logic, then yes, MMR vaccines cause autism.

Because valid knowledge is only obtainable through the practices of nations. If a nation implements it, it must be valid. Correct?

Sounds fallacious.


Drop the strawmen.

Answer the question.

You refer to "the free market" as if it exists somewhere in the real world. Provide an example.

If it doesn't exist in the real world, you are merely parroting idealistic economic theories.

So, provide an example of a national economic system that meets your requirements of a free market that currently exists in the real world.
edit on 14Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:46:02 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: added "the" and a return



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.


How would any answer here qualify the position?
The US is the second or third largest country in the world in terms of land mass. China and Russia do not have free market economies but none of the three countries are what could be called economically sound. The conditions of your question are inconsistant. Do you want to actually know if a free market works or are you simply trying to load the question in and attempt to bolster your position that the government must be involved in business? I think we all know the answer to THAT question.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Dragoon01

Gryphon66
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.


How would any answer here qualify the position?
The US is the second or third largest country in the world in terms of land mass. China and Russia do not have free market economies but none of the three countries are what could be called economically sound. The conditions of your question are inconsistant. Do you want to actually know if a free market works or are you simply trying to load the question in and attempt to bolster your position that the government must be involved in business? I think we all know the answer to THAT question.


Fine. Point to any country of any size in which the "free market" exists.

Arguments are made here by reference to "the free market." I'm only asking for verifying evidence that such a thing exists.

Is that so hard?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

thesaneone
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Try again.

This has nothing to do with money


you keep thinking that...
2nd line



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

jimmyx

thesaneone

buster2010
When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law


Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.


hey...watch it there...strict constitutional rights only apply to the 2nd amendment...all the others are up for "interpretation"



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

jimmyx

thesaneone

buster2010
When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law


Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.


14th Amendment:



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this artic



Nope, not there.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3



To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Nope. Not there either.


Constitution fail.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



Insurance is compensation for labor just like a salary.


Insurance paid for by your employer is an extra that you receive on top of your salary.


Does Mr. Green also get to say how his employees spend their salary?


Yes. If the mob can force Mr. Green to pay for their extras (the things their salaries are meant to pay for, like healthcare), then Mr. Green should have a say as to how they spend their salaries. Fair is fair.


Where does this end?


At the point we stop using the government to demanding extras from our employers.


If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can he stop you from getting a blood transfusion? If your employer is a Scientologist, can he stop you from seeking counseling or accessing anti-depressants? You may be OK with this because you share Mr. Green's take on Christianity but it doesn't stop with faiths, or even sects of faiths that you agree with. What if your employer doesn't believe in modern medicine at all?


If you are using the money that you earned in exchange for the services you offered to your employer, to purchase product X from a retailer other than your employer (for the sake of argument)...you have every right to do so. If your employer throws a fit simply because he doesn't like product X and tries to force his morality on others by petitioning the government to outlaw the manufacturing and sale of product X, he is an ultra mega dbag authoritarian and should be hit with a brick.

If, you don't want to spend the money you earned on product X, and you petition the government to force your employer to buy you product X (insurance), knowing that your employer may not morally agree with the purchase of product X, then YOU are an ultra mega dbag authoritarian and should be hit with a brick. Your examples above would not matter if we were not using the government to force employers to buy insurance for their employees.

Healthcare would not be so expensive in the first place if it wasn't for government regulation. Government regulation makes things expensive. Then you cry. Then you use the government to make more regulations to force your employer to give you things. And the cycle continues. And everyone wonders why our businesses disappear.


If we let one religious sect enforce their religious beliefs on his employees then they all get to. And none of us will have religious freedom anymore.[/agreed]

Agreed. No one should be forcing their morals on anyone, that is the crux of this entire issue. Some people think that, morally, their employers have to provide them with benefits.


That isn't American.


Neither is using the government to rob people, but here we are.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.





Can you please link the exact point you are trying to make?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


LOL.

The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the Federal government the right to regulate Commerce "among the several States."

Are your imaginary employer and employee within one of the States within the United States? Then, your question is answered.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides for due process before the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens.

Are your imaginary employer and employee citizens of the United States? Then your question is answered.

Claiming a "fail" is not an argument. State your case.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


I answered a question put forward by NavyDoc.

See his question for more information.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Gryphon66

Dragoon01

Gryphon66
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.


How would any answer here qualify the position?
The US is the second or third largest country in the world in terms of land mass. China and Russia do not have free market economies but none of the three countries are what could be called economically sound. The conditions of your question are inconsistant. Do you want to actually know if a free market works or are you simply trying to load the question in and attempt to bolster your position that the government must be involved in business? I think we all know the answer to THAT question.


Fine. Point to any country of any size in which the "free market" exists.

Arguments are made here by reference to "the free market." I'm only asking for verifying evidence that such a thing exists.

Is that so hard?




Well Hong Kong and Singapore are ranked as the worlds top two countries for economic freedom. Does that mean that they exist in a pure free market? No, there is no pure free market at a national level however these countries do the most to assure that the market is as free as it can be. You know as well as I do that all national governments cannot resist the temptation to stire the pot. None of that demand free markets realisticallt believe that government can be completely contained. What we demand is a small a regulatory burden as possible. We demand that government remain outside of the terms of contracts unless disputes arise that cannot be resolved. When those disputes do arise the arbitration should be as non-biased as possible. Now ther are countless examples of the free market working on an individual level. You can look at the sale of cocain, pot, heroin...so forth. A supplier has a product and the buyer pays the agreed upon price. The market drives the cost and the state is nowhere to be found except trying to stop the trade. You could say the state is regulating the sale based off its legality but the sales go on in spite of the laws passed.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Drop the strawmen.


There was no strawman. You said that knowledge can only be valid if it is being implemented by at least one nation. So, if that reasoning works with the free market, it also works for other forms of knowledge, too. I was highlighting the absurdity of your question.


Answer the question.


I did.


You refer to "the free market" as if it exists somewhere in the real world. Provide an example.


Why? The argument of "if no one is using it, it's obviously invalid" is inherently fallacious. It could be the best choice out there, maybe all nations are idiots? Maybe governments are bent on the total domination of the market? Maybe a handful of people do not want a free market and are pulling the strings of governments, businesses, and citizens to stop one from occurring? Who knows. Maybe citizens themselves are just plain retarded?


If it doesn't exist in the real world, you are merely parroting idealistic economic theories.


It existed in the United States from the very beginning. We were doing fine. For the past one hundred years our market has been regulated progressively more and more. This has done nothing aside from lose us all of our manufacturing plants, it has caused the outsourcing of skilled and unskilled labor, it has caused the prices of goods and services to inflate, and it has single-handedly caused parts of the US to be transformed into budding, 3rd world countries (the ghettos of Detroit, Chicago, and the like).

ALL of our economic problems in the US have been caused by our departure from free market principles.


So, provide an example of a national economic system that meets your requirements of a free market that currently exists in the real world.


I already proved that MMR vaccines cause autism using your logic.
edit on 4-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by Bone75
 


He is not running a religious institution, so he cannot claim a religious exemption on the simple task of providing a health-care insurance provider who would provide legal contraceptives on their plan. Instead, he wants to hurt each and every person working for him by picking up his marbles and going home.

What a sore loser. And if he so opposed to providing adequate health care for his employees, maybe he should sell his company to someone who would, thus saving the jobs of everyone who has stayed loyal to him.
edit on 3-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


Sore loser? In case you do not understand (as it is clear you do not) it's called principles. It's called standing up for one's beliefs, something few people these days comprehend at even the most basic levels.

I give a hearty cheer to them for walking the walk! So much for claims regarding greed and big business. These people actually have the cojones to walk away from a profitable business rather than allow the govt to force them to do something against their principles.

I abhor our current state of the union. I abhor the cynicism that exists in America and I abhor what America has become. I am sad, and embarrassed that the "greatest generation" sacrificed so much only to see the country become the stinking pile of crap it is now.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

MystikMushroom
Well, there's a ton of other craft stores.


Yes, and I'm sure many of them are taking applications for part time positions at minimum wage, with no benefits whatsoever. Go work at one of those stores and leave Hobby Lobby alone.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


No you didn't I asked that you post a link with the exact point you are trying to make.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

nixie_nox



By that argument, then you don't have the right to an education, or to drive on roads or get police or fire coverage.




en.wikipedia.org...

Can't seem to find those "rights" you listed anywhere.

Can you maybe highlight them for me?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join